This motherboard has some peculiar options related to the ULI M1689 chipset so I will give a short info about them - and being shameless i will copy over from my old topic:
- M1689 gated clock reduces power to unused PCI slots
- PCI/14M/USB clock power down is a more enhanced version of the previous option and disable power to unused USB ports in addition to PCI slots.
I played with them and the scores in the benchmarks did not changed regardless of the setting.

In the AGP options page you MUST set the AGP secondary latency timer according to what you see in the picture in order to have compatibility between the board/chipset and the radeon x1950 pro!
The last interesting options are on the hypertransport configuration page:
- hammer to M1689 frequency represents the hypertransport frequency and it is set at 1000 MHz as it should be on socket 939.
- hammer to M1689 width is, as the name implies, the width of the hypertransport bus and 16/8 bits is the max value.
- M1689 HTT (hypertransport) tristate - this option enhances the stability of the system and it is mandatory on Abit UL8 otherwise you will get random crashes! Leave it enabled at all times!

Everest 5.50 shows all the system details; latest BIOS version has been used for all the boards:

The tests: I consider that the vast majority of people building a socket 939 system are interested in games so 3d performance is what we are looking for; most of the benchmarks test just that! Although one can use a socket 939 system for modern tasks with modern Windows performance is going to be so low that it is highly unlikely that are many interested in going this route!
All 4 platforms can take Windows 9X without any problem, tested with a Windows Me after downgrading the RAM to 2*256mb and the video card to a Radeon X600XT. However I consider that Windows 9X on such a system is far beyond its purpose; a socket 478 or socket A are, IMHO, ideally suited for a 98SE machine. Therefore I used Windows XP SP3 on all 4 platforms.
The "target period" for a retro PC like this is going to be the 2000 - 2004 period (early Windows XP) and is limited by the video card. I did tested FEAR from 2005 however x1950 pro is limiting performance so much that all 4 perform within 2% of each other. I strongly believe that for late Windows XP period you are going to need a strong directx 10 pci-express video card; not even the strongest Directx9 card can master the games from 2005-2006!

I must underline the fact that I have performed all synthetic tests at the default settings first and at maximum details in all subsequent runs. All games have been tested fully maxed out with the sole exception of Doom 3.
So now the tests: all are from the 2000 - 2004 period.

Synthetic tests:
DirectX7: 3dmark 2000;
DirectX8: Code creatures pro, 3dmark 2001;
DirectX9: 3dmark 2003, Aquamark3;
GUI test: Tom 2D;
CPU tests: Super pi, Cinebench 2003;
System tests: Pcmark 2002 & 2004 & 2005;

Games:
DirectX8: unreal tournament 2004;
DirectX9: Farcry, Half life 2;
OpengGl: Doom 3.

12 of the tests will include sound. A legitimate question would be: but they all got AC97 codec so they are equal! We shall see about that.

Quick recap before going into the results:
Drivers:
ULI platforms have the latest 2.20 version;
VIA has the 4.56v version of 4 in 1;
Realtek AC97 driver version 4.06;
Radeon driver version 10.2;
for the IC+ LAN controller i used driver v2.22.51104 from https://soggi.org/drivers/ic-plus.htm - I thank soggi for this one!

System A - socket 754
Athlon 64 Venice 3200;
Abit KU8 - ULI M1689 chipset;
2*1gb DDR-400;
radeon x1950 pro;
SSD Kingston 240gb + WD raptor 74gb.

System B - socket 754
Athlon 64 Venice 3200;
Abit KV8 PRO - VIA K8T800 PRO chipset;
2*1gb DDR-400
radeon x1950 pro
WD raptor 74gb.

System C - socket 939
Athlon 64 Venice 3500
Abit UL8 - ULI M1689 chipset;
2*1gb DDR-400
radeon x1950 pro
SSD Kingston 240gb + WD raptor 74gb.

System D - socket 939
Athlon 64 Venice 3500
Abit AV8 - VIA K8T800 PRO chipset;
2*1gb DDR-400
radeon x1950 pro
WD raptor 74gb.

We are interested in the difference that dual channel brings to the Athlon 64, as there is a 9.375% difference in the performance rating - PR - of these processors so let's see what the tests show us!
For easier viewing the ULI platforms have the default Windows XP Luna theme with the silver variation as this is the official colour of the company logo and the VIA platforms have the default Windows XP Luna theme with the blue variation as this is the official colour of the company logo.

ASRock also did this abomination: https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/asrock-939a790gmh

zuldan wrote on 2026-03-11, 11:05:

Would it not be better to use…

AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 2.4 GHz (socket 754 / Clawhammer)
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ 2.4 GHz (socket 939 / Clawhammer)

AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 2.4 GHz socket 754 is very rare and expensive, not worth buying unless one finds it super cheap. There is a seller locally who sells one for 200€ - insane. 2.2Ghz is practical limit of what is possible to buy for a reasonable price. On the upside, s754 availability is much better than s939. Locally I see like 4x more boards being sold. s939 will typically have failing caps.

Despite introduction of X2 CPUs, s939 remained mostly a single core platform for majority of people. s939 X2 CPUs are very expensive, similarly to that Athlon 64 3700+. They are not worth buying. Most people building s939 rigs will most likely be using single core CPUs at about 2.4Ghz. It has better selection of PCIe boards and 2x more memory. With a single core CPU it is going to be usable for games until 2005, same as s754 due to CPU bottleneck.

I wish I was into AMD processors during that era. I may have had the same warm feeling towards Socket 939.
I appreciate its technological merits, but without personal experiences to draw inspiration from, it just doesn't feel the same. 🙂

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2026-03-18, 05:49:

ASRock also did this abomination: https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/asrock-939a790gmh

Asrock created many 939 abominations and they are pretty hard to find unless you are willing to throw bills like it's spirit money (joss paper).
I'd like to see all of those tested, to see if there is a real benefit with those latest chipsets.

Asrock also has 754 + 939 combo boards.
I never had one but, IIRC, they were slower than only 754 or 939, because of the chipsets - Uli or Sis.

Asrock has many interesting boards, however - from what I have seen- they seem to be of lower quality/lower performance than competitors, at least in socket A/754/939 era.
Socket 939 has that special aura - AMD on top, firs dual cores, performance with pci-express video cards is extraordinary compared to what came before it!

We have reached the tests and the first one is Code creatures pro, a DirectX8 benchmark that is supposed to be very easy on all systems!
1. 1024*768 first:
A. KU8
B. KV8 PRO
C. UL8
D. AV8

I have an s754 ASRock board with AGP and I can recommend this brand. They are very cheap on ebay and offer BIOS settings comparable to an overpriced Asus. They are better than MSI.

If you downclock Windsor X2 on AM2 you should get very similar performance to s939 X2. It is a much cheaper alternative to running X2 on s939.

2. 1024*768 with sound:
A. KU8
B. KV8 PRO
C. UL8
D. AV8

AlexZ wrote on 2026-03-19, 19:39:

I have an s754 ASRock board with AGP and I can recommend this brand. They are very cheap on ebay and offer BIOS settings comparable to an overpriced Asus. They are better than MSI.

If you downclock Windsor X2 on AM2 you should get very similar performance to s939 X2. It is a much cheaper alternative to running X2 on s939.

That is good to know that there is someone with first hand good experience with Asrock/
That will be featured in chapter 2: Part 2 will consist of a direct comparison with its successor: socket AM2 with Athlon 64 X2 using DDR2 can be compared with the identical clocked/cache size CPU on socket 939 to see if DDR2 brings any speed benefits!

3. Now it is time to ramp things up with the only quality setting available in Code creatures pro: AA. I selected 4x AA in all the tests despite the fact that radeon x1950 pro can do 6X because even this card would be overwhelmed in many benchmarks at high AA levels such as 6X or more.
1024*768 AA 4X
A. KU8
B. KV8 PRO
C. UL8
D. AV8

4. 1024*768 AA 4x with Sound:
A. KU8
B. KV8 PRO
C. UL8
D. AV8

That's a lot work, such a fascinating read so far. There is a GeCube xtx which has a pci-e bridge chip on it. It was a quick beasty.

Thank you.
5. Code creatures pro 1280*1024 AA 4X:
A. KU8
B. KV8 PRO
C. UL8
D. AV8